صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

2075

v. 9

1852

UNIVERSALIST QUARTERLY

AND

GENERAL REVIEW.

ARTICLE I.

Doctrine and Life of Maximus the Confessor.

S. Maximi Confessoris, Græcorum Theologi eximiique Philosophi, Opera. Ex probatissimis quæque Mss. Codicibus, Regiis, Card. Mazarini, Seguierianis, Vaticanis, Barberinis, Magni Ducis Florentinis, Venetis, &c. eruta, nova Versione subacta, Notisque illustrata. Opera & studio R. P. Combefis, Ord. FF. Prædicorum Provincia Sancti Ludovici. Ex Almi Galliæ Cleri jussu et ordine. Parisiis, 1675. 2 Tom. fol.

[ocr errors]

AMONG the distinguished names which belong to the ancient history of Universalism, we find that of St. Maximus of Constantinople, the Monk and the Confessor, as he is called. He flourished in the early part, and in the middle, of the Seventh Century. Though he has left no very clear or formal expression of his faith on this one point, the restitution of all things, it is evident enough, from the general purport of his writings, that he held the doctrine, notwithstanding the anathema passed upon it by the Catholic Church, which compelled him to avoid an offensive avowal. And this conclusion is confirmed by the judgement of some of our ablest inquirers into the opinions of antiquity. Neander says that "the fundamen'tal ideas of Maximus seem to lead to the doctrine of a 'final universal restoration, which is, in fact, intimately con'nected also with the system of Gregory of Nyssa, to which 'he most closely adhered. Yet he was too much fettered 'by the Church system of doctrine, distinctly to express

VOL. IX.

1

'any theory of this sort." 1 To the judgement thus pronounced by Neander, the historian of the Christian Church, we may add that of Ritter, the historian of Philosophy: "The doctrine of Maximus, concerning the union of all 'things with God, leads him by consequence to the doc'trine also of the restoration of all fallen souls. He found 'this in Gregory of Nyssa, and he could not do otherwise 'than to favor it, since it stands in the closest agreement 'with his own doctrine, that all things will be united with 'God through his Son. The Word of God is to become 'all in all, and to save all; at the end of the world, there 'shall be a universal renewal of the human race. What 'can set bounds to this grace of God, since it will have the 'power to create anew? In reality, God leaves no man 'free; for he is united with all, and he will at last dwell ' in all by a perfect union. Along with this thought, however, there naturally came up the consideration which 'arises from the other side of his doctrine, namely, that 'this union can take place only in the degree in which the " creatures themselves are worthy; so that the union will 'bring pleasure in some cases, and anguish in others. 'Still the soul ever seeks rest; and as it can obtain this ' nowhere but in God, it cannot cease to strive, till it has 'found him. Then shall the soul take its body again, ' recover all its virtues, and all its fallen powers restored to 6 perfect soundness, and have no more remembrance of its 'former evil.” 2

Maximus is generally regarded, by modern writers of ecclesiastical and dogmatic history, as the most earnest and profound theologian of his times. Mosheim names him first among the best Greek fathers of that Century; Milner calls him "one of the most learned men of the age,” a lover “of real godliness," and admires his "good sense and sincerity; Neander pronounces him “a man distinguished for acuteness and profundity of intellect," for "zeal in endeavoring to promote a vital, practical

[ocr errors]

1 Neander's Hist. of the Christian Religion, &c. (Torrey's translation) vol. iii. p. 175. In his Note, here, Neander mentions the doctrine of Maximus, that the reunion of all rational essences with God, is the final end of the divine economy, and that God will finally be glorified by the extinction of all evil.

2 Ritter, Geschichte der Christliche Philosophie, 2 ter Theil, S. 550, 551. (6 ter Th. d. Gesch. d. Philosophie.)

Christianity, flowing out of the disposition of the heart," and thinks highly of "his solid worth and importance;" Ritter says, he "unquestionably belonged among the most remarkable men of his time," and commends his extraordinary learning, his depth, versatility, sharpness of thought, and elevating warmth of feeling.

It is but just to acknowledge, however, that many of these distinctions can be accorded to him only with reference to the low level of his age. Though he rose, in certain respects, above the influences of the time, his mind was evidently warped by them, if not stunted, and his thoughts were stamped with the crabbed forms of the prevailing doctrines and tastes. We should, therefore, place him at much disadvantage, were we to compare him with the great thinkers, or with the great geniuses, of other and more enlightened periods. In point of method, at least, he seems to us a very abrupt, obscure, and inelegant writer; and if, in his opinions, we discover some better views than were common at that time, they are sadly shrouded by the prevailing darkness. The Seventh Century extended a considerable way into the evening of that long night which was coming down on universal Christendom. There was little freedom of investigation, or vigor of understanding to investigate; there was no healthful nor natural exercise of thought. All was chained down, by ecclesiastical authority; all was corrupted, either by the fresh barbarism that had broken in, or by the putrifying elements that remained of a worn-out civilization. It is true, that the Greek or Eastern Church, to which Maximus belonged, preserved a much greater degree of intellectual activity, than the Latin; but even this activity was, in general, only a whimsical sprightliness, busied in futile speculations, or exhausted in efforts at narrow and idle acuteness in dialectics. Perhaps, in no period is the human mind exhibited under a more humiliating aspect, than in those times when genius had not yet wholly departed from the world, but when the little that remained of it was employed in fantastic theorizing; as friskiness, in second-childhood, is more unseemly to behold, than the stupidity of absolute decrepitude. Such was the general state of things, during the life-time of Maximus.

If we look into the condition of religious affairs in the East, where he was brought up, we must observe that the long and disgraceful quarrels, concerning the two natures of Christ, had already closed, when he was born, and that our present Orthodox doctrine, on this point, had been permanently established, by the shameless treachery, intrigues, bribery, kicks and blows, which characterized several successive Councils of ambitious prelates and courtiers. In this way, the final decision had been brought about, that the divinity and humanity, the Godhead and manhood, were amalgamated into one person, in Christ, without distinction between them, but yet without being confounded together. Jargon could go no further; and here the matter permanently rested. But about the year 620, another question, growing out of that decision, began to be agitated: Whether there were two wills, two sets of mental operations, in Christ, by virtue of his two natures. As it was acknowledged, notwithstanding the doubleness of his being, that he was but one person, many were inclined to infer that he had but one will, one faculty of volition, namely, that of his divine nature, which acted through his human nature, as through its instrument. Different seats of volition, it was thought, would of course render him more than one person. Others, however, saw in this inference a deadly heresy, big with danger to the decision, of the former century, concerning his two natures. They concluded that, although Christ was but one person, yet his humanity had a complete will of its own, as well as his divinity. This was the great theological question which shook the Church, during the latter half of the life of Maximus. It would lead us too far astray to follow the violent contest which raged, and to relate the opposite decisions of Councils, the conflicting positions of successive Popes, and the no less contradictory decrees of different Emperors, on the point. It is sufficient to say, that the advocates of one will only, were called Monothelites, and that the defenders of two wills, who finally got the victory, may be distinguished, by a corresponding Greek appellation, as Duothelites.

We shall see in the sequel, that Maximus was one of the leading spirits in the latter party, the Orthodox as it eventually proved to be, though he fell a martyr to the

« السابقةمتابعة »